Citizen Works has long advocated for a corporate crime database as part of our ongoing efforts to reduce corporate abuse and ensure transparency for consumers. On June 3rd, 2024, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau finalized a rule that takes a step towards that goal.

The new rule creates a publicly available registry that tracks enforcement actions against non-bank lenders—like payday and auto loan venders—that have broken consumer protection law. The rule applies only to the non-bank lenders that the CFPB oversees but requires they report any action taken against them because they broke consumer protection laws—whether the CFPB was the one who acted.

Additionally, the rule requires that a senior executive at the lender report to the CFPB what steps are being taken to comply with enforcement actions. (See the rule)

While this rule is an important step towards reigning in corporate crime, Citizen Works still advocates for the creation of a comprehensive database to track corporate crime and anti-consumer behavior.

As cars become more technologically complex, they are increasingly able to gather information on drivers and their habits. Some metrics are what drivers are used to and often appreciate—such as fuel efficiency. But newer vehicles can also collect detailed data on how drivers behave—such as instances of rapid acceleration and braking or even location data.

How companies can use collected data like this is typically subject to privacy agreements included in terms and conditions at the time of purchase. Privacy agreements are typically long, expansive, and written in legalese, meaning when consumers read them—though they rarely do—it is unclear exactly what data is being collected, how it is being used, and, often, to whom it is being sold. Consumers often take it for granted that products like social media platforms collect and sell their data but may not expect that a product like their car is also collecting and storing their personal data.

In September of 2023, the Mozilla Foundation, a data privacy-focused non-profit, published a report on the data privacy practices of 25 automakers as part of their *Privacy Not Included series. After some tire-kicking, Mozilla labelled the auto industry the “worst product category” they had ever reviewed. The report brought forth an issue that has since drawn the interest of multiple government regulators and spurred multiple lawsuits in federal courts. (See the Mozilla report or details on what data is collected and how)

Mozilla’s report raised eyebrows in Congress. In December, Senator Ed Markey (D-MA), who sits on the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety and Data Security, asked 14 automakers doing business in the US to clarify their data collection policies. After lackluster responses from automakers, Sen. Markey sent a letter to the Federal Trade Commission asking it to investigate their data collection and privacy practices. (Read the letter and the responses from automakers)

In mid-May, the FTC released a blog post focused on data-rich vehicle manufacturers that reminded them that misuse of sensitive data will result in FTC action. The post referenced several recent situations where the FTC acted on misuse of data like geolocation by companies in other industries. While the notice did not announce any official actions or investigations, it was a strong reminder that corporate abuse of consumers’ private data will not go unnoticed. (Read the FTC’s post) The Federal Communications Commission also released a noticed of proposed rulemaking in April related to automobile data collection that would prevent victims of domestic abuse from having their connected vehicle data exploited by abusers, underscoring the need for robust data privacy practices. (See the rulemaking proposal)

Federal regulators may not have yet acted formally, but the drivers whose data is at risk have launched legal action against carmakers. In March, the New York Times reported General Motors had sold highly detailed and personalized driving data to third parties, including insurance companies, without their consent. (See the whole article.)

Multiple lawsuits in federal court, including some class action suits, have followed, claiming GM distributed driving data to two consumer credit reporting agencies who do business with auto insurance companies without the consent of vehicle owners. GM ran an opt-in program called OnStar Smart Driver which claimed to provide “customers with information about their driving behavior to help them maximize their vehicle’s overall performance, reduce vehicle wear and tear and encourage safer driving.” Consumers who enrolled in the program and subsequently sued GM say the terms and conditions did not give GM permission to give their data to insurance companies, and, in at least one case, say GM shared data even though they were never part of the program at all.

If true, these alleged claims would mean reckless misuse of drivers’ personal data by automakers for profit, underscoring the need for regulators and lawmakers to act to protect the privacy of consumers and reign in unfair practices.

Despite repeated efforts, Amtrak continues to require passengers to agree to an arbitration process to resolve claims against the rail service.

Amtrak added the Arbitration Agreement to the terms and conditions of its passenger tickets in 2019. The terms of the agreement state that it is “intended to be as broad as legally permissible, and, except as it otherwise provides, applies to all claims, disputes, or controversies, past, present, or future, that otherwise would be resolved in a court of law or before a forum other than arbitration.” In essence, the agreement forces all passengers who suffer injury from Amtrak to resolve their claims through a private arbitration process, not through the public courts system.

Forced arbitration can seriously limit consumers’ ability to win compensation for harm done by a corporation. Because the federal government owns a majority stake in Amtrak and it functions as a quasi-public corporation, some advocates contend that Amtrak’s Arbitration Agreement is unconstitutional and restricts citizens’ right to petition the government. (see Forced Arbitration)

In January of 2020, Public Citizen filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of two customers challenging the legality of Amtrak’s Arbitration Agreement. Because Amtrak is majority owned by the federal government, the plaintiffs argued that the Arbitration Agreement violated Americans’ rights to petition the government through the judicial system. The District Court dismissed the lawsuit on procedural grounds for lack of an actual injury-in-fact or imminent future (standing to bring the lawsuit), and an appeals court upheld the District Court’s decision, leaving the legal question of the Arbitration Agreement unresolved. (See Weissman v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.).

The lawsuit, however, along with a public letter penned by Public Citizen and signed by more than 30 consumer advocacy organizations and written testimony submitted to a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee, brought Amtrak’s policy to the attention of lawmakers. Lawmakers in both houses introduced legislation to force Amtrak to amend their policy in 2020, and another bill was introduced in the Senate in 2021.

None were given a vote, and tickets purchased on Amtrak still carry a forced arbitration term that seriously restricts passengers’ ability to hold Amtrak accountable in court for injury or misconduct.

In June 2020, the Supreme Court released its opinion in the case of Seila Law vs. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), which questioned whether the leadership structure of the CFPB was constitutional. In a 5-4 decision along ideological lines, the Court—in an opinion authored by Chief Justice Roberts—ruled that the restrictions placed on the President’s ability to remove the Bureau’s director violated the Constitution’s separation of powers. The Court’s decision drastically increases the President’s power over the CFPB, limiting its independence and making it more vulnerable to political influence. (See Seila Law vs. CFPB)

Formed in 2011 by the Dodd-Frank Act in response to the 2008 financial crisis, the CFPB concentrated the regulation of consumer financial services in a single organization. The CFPB issues regulations for consumer financial products and levies fines to punish unfair or abusive lending practices. To insulate it from political pressure, Congress included two unusual provisions in the Bureau’s structure. First, the CFPB is funded outside of the traditional appropriations process, allowing it to pull money directly from the Federal Reserve without needing to seek approval from Congress.
The second was an independent directorship, nominated by the President for a five-year term and approved under the normal process for executive branch appointees by the Senate. Most executive appointees serve at the pleasure of the President—meaning the President can fire the official if a disagreement arises between them and the White House. The Bureau’s director was given for-cause protection, meaning that they can only be fired for neglect or malfeasance.

In 2017, the CFPB began investigating Seila Law, a firm that provides finance-related legal services. Seila Law challenged the authority of the Bureau to do so, arguing that its director structure was unconstitutional and therefore the Bureau was powerless. The case worked its way to the Supreme Court, which decided that there were two separate issues at hand.

The first question was whether the protections given by Congress to the Bureau’s director were constitutional. The Court ruled that the President has the power to oversee officials within the executive branch, and the limits on removal violated that power. In essence, Congress can not create an agency within the executive branch with the power to make rules and impose major fines and deny the President the authority to supervise that agency. The Court distinguished the CFPB from other nominally independent agencies that are run by multi-member boards like the Federal Trade Commission, which it had previously ruled can be protected by for-cause clauses. (See Humphrey’s Executor vs. United States)

The second question was whether the fact that the Bureau’s director was unconstitutionally protected posed an issue for the rest of the CFPB’s activities. In a 7-2 split, the Court’s liberal minority joined all but Justices Gorsuch and Thomas in affirming that the Bureau’s structure was governed by the principle of severability. Under this principle, an issue that invalidates one part of a law (in this case, the director’s protection from dismissal) does not jeopardize the entire law.

In the end, the Court struck down the director’s for-cause protections but did nothing more, denying the CFPB’s opponents a full-scale victory. The ruling, however, makes the CFPB much more vulnerable to political influence, as the President can now fire directors who run the Bureau in a way deemed unsatisfactory by the President. While the Court limited the independence of the CFPB’s director, it upheld the constitutionality of the Bureau’s unusual funding structure in another case decided in May 2024. (See CFPB vs. Community Financial Services Association of America)

On May 16, 2024, the Supreme Court released its decision in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau vs. Community Financial Services Association of America, a case that questioned the constitutionality of the funding structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). In a 7-2 decision, the Court—in an opinion authored by Justice Clarence Thomas—roundly rejected CFSAA’s arguments that the CFPB’s unique funding process was unconstitutional. The Court’s ruling upheld the structure of the CFPB and fended off a challenge from an industry group hoping to limit the Bureau’s power to investigate and stop unfair and illegal lending practices. (See CFPB v. CFSAA)

In 2011, the Dodd-Frank Act—passed in response to the financial crisis—created the CFPB to regulate consumer-facing financial products such as payday loans, auto loans, and credit cards. Most government agencies are funded by annual appropriations from Congress, making them highly subject to the political agendas of lawmakers. To protect it from political pressure that could limit its ability to regulate unfair and illegal financial practices, Congress authorized the CFPB to pull money directly from the Federal Reserve each year. The Bureau’s director is given the authority to determine the amount, which is limited by an inflation-adjusted cap (for FY2024, that cap is about $785 million).

The Consumer Financial Services Association of America (CFSAA), a trade group of payday loan and other small-dollar lenders, had sued the Bureau in 2017 over regulations it published on certain high-interest loans. As part of the legal challenge, the CFSAA argued that the Bureau’s funding structure violated the Constitution’s Appropriations Clause—which requires that all money taken out of the Treasury be explicitly authorized by Congress—because it was too open-ended. The Court found no merit in CFSAA’s arguments.

Among other examples, the Court noted that the Postal Service funded itself through revenue from postal services as historical precedent. The Supreme Court’s ruling puts to rest a challenge that could have jeopardized the Bureau’s entire existence and re-affirms its independence. 


The Court had previously ruled in 2020 in Seila Law vs. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that the Bureau’s leadership structure was unconstitutional. The CFPB had been created with a single independent director who was nominated for a five-year term but could only be removed under limited circumstances like neglect of duty or malfeasance. In Seila Law, the Court ruled that this structure violated the Constitution’s separation of powers by denying the President the power to oversee the Bureau’s director. The Court removed the restrictions on firing the Bureau’s director but noted that this issue did not affect the rest of CFPB’s operations. (See Seila Law vs. CFPB)

On March 3, 2020, the Supreme Court will hear Seila Law, LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, to determine whether the structure of the CFPB is constitutional. How the Court answers the question could have far-reaching impact, not only in determining how the CFPB operates in the future, but also in potentially invalidating past CFPB actions.

Created in 2011 in the wake of the financial collapse, and followed in detail by Citizen Works then, the CFPB exists to enforce a variety of federal consumer-protection laws and to protect consumers from the volatility of the financial marketplace that left many in dire circumstances in 2008. Prior to the creation of the CFPB, consumer-protection laws enforcement was spread throughout different government agencies—leading to a confusing patchwork of enforcement, or nonenforcement. After the collapse, the Obama administration pushed the creation of the bureau—first proposed as an independent agency by then-Professor Elizabeth Warren.

When Congress created the CFPB—as part of the Dodd–Frank Act—it wanted the agency to be powerful, free of industry influence, and safe from the political squabbles of Congress. To that end, the CFPB is unlike many other executive agencies for two reasons. First, it receives its funding directly from the Federal Reserve, guaranteeing that Congress cannot hamstring the Bureau by withholding funding. Second, the CFPB has a single director, appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, who serves a five-year term and is removable only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office” (also known as “for cause” removal). 12 U.S.C. § 5491(c)(3).

The second of those features is at the heart of the challenge in Seila v. CFPB. Seila Law describes itself as a consumer-protection firm. When the CFPB began investigating the firm, for allegedly violating consumer-protection laws, the Bureau issued a civil investigative demand, asking for information about the firm. Seila refused to provide the information, contending that the agency was unconstitutional because it was structured with a single director who could be removed only for cause. Seila made that argument to the district court and the Ninth Circuit, and both courts rejected it. When Seila asked the Supreme Court to weigh in, the U.S. Solicitor General’s Office, in a rare move, agreed that the CFPB is unconstitutional. The Court agreed to hear the matter.

At the heart of the challenge is a separation of powers question. As a general matter, the President—who has the constitutional responsibility to see that the laws are faithfully executed—can choose who runs the various executive agencies. That way, the President can make sure that the agencies and the White House share the same priorities. There are a few exceptions though. Some agencies, such as the Federal Trade Commission, have a multi-member board and the Supreme Court has held that it is constitutional that board members are removable only for cause. See Humprey’s Executor v. United States. Similarly, the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of allowing independent investigators to be removed only for cause. See Morrison v. Olson.

The Supreme Court will consider whether the CFPB’s composition is constitutional in its similarity to those structures that have already been upheld, or whether the CFPB goes further than the multi-member boards and independent investigators and must be deemed unconstitutional. The Court’s decision will likely be a controversial and important opinion for consumer protection.

By all accounts the country faces a looming student debt crisis.  Debts from student loans currently amount to $1.4 trillion, a number that has grown exponentially over the last decade as more and more students take on debt only to face a demanding labor market.  Default rates are also on the rise—recent data from the U.S. Department of Education indicates that 11.5 percent of student borrowers who began paying off their loans in 2014 have since defaulted.  A recent analysis from The Brookings Institute projects that these default rates will continue to escalate if no large-scale changes are made.

The situation of struggling debtors has been made worse by the dubious practices of the loan servicing companies that manage the Federal government’s Direct Loan program. Navient (formerly part of Sallie Mae) is one of the largest of these companies and currently faces lawsuits in Pennsylvania, Washington, and Illinois, as well as from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau for its alleged mishandling of loan collection.  The CFPB suit alleges that Navient systematically deceived or misled borrowers over the phone and in writing, incorrectly processed or misallocated payments, and obscured information relating to income-driven repayment plans. Between 2010 and 2015 Navient added over $4 billion in interest rate charges. The CFPB asserts these charges could have been avoided had the company informed borrowers of their eligibility for less demanding payment plans. In its defense filing, Navient argued that “there is no expectation that the servicer will act in the interests of the consumer”—a somewhat extraordinary statement from a company contracted by the Federal government and ostensibly in the employ of U.S. taxpayers.  Such practices are not limited to Navient alone. The Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency (also known as FedLoan Servicing), which handles about a quarter of national student loans, is currently facing a suit brought by the Massachusetts Attorney General.  That suit alleges that the company overcharged borrowers and prevented public service workers and teachers from accessing benefits and loan forgiveness programs specifically targeted toward those entering public sector employment.

States that challenge these companies may soon have to directly contend with the Trump administration.  In California the Student Loan Servicing Act recently signed into law requires loan collectors to comply with a licensing program, giving the state oversight into questionable practices.  But  a confidential memo leaked in early March reveals that the U.S. Department of Education will direct states to stop interfering with collectors.  The memo first defends the Federal Direct Loan Program, pointing out that Congress created it  “with the goal of simplifying the delivery of student loans to borrowers, eliminating borrower confusion, avoiding unnecessary costs to taxpayers, and creating a more streamlined student loan program.” (Based on the Navient complaints gathered by the CFPB, theses goals of simplification and efficiency are clearly far from being reached.)  The memo goes on to say that “state regulation of the servicing of Direct Loans impedes uniquely Federal interests.”  The statement is revealing in two ways.  First, it seemingly reverses the tendency of the Trump administration to shift responsibility to states on issues, underscoring its fealty to the interests of business over that of jurisdictional principle.  Second, many argue that the most distasteful and unjust aspect of student loan administration is that it is actually profitable for the Federal government—to the tune of, by most recent estimates, $135 billion over ten years.  If this is the case, the Federal government has a vested interest in preserving the status quo.

Student debt accounts for the second largest category of consumer debt after housing.  And, as with the market for subprime housing mortgages, there is a crisis in the making.  This being said, we do not lack for remedies.  States and the CFPB, must continue to regulate and monitor loan collectors and repayment plans based on income should continue to be made accessible and comprehensible to borrowers.  But broader solutions such as debt cancellation and free college tuition are economically feasible and enjoy popular support.  Oregon, Tennessee, New York, and Rhode Island have all made community college tuition free, and there’s a push to make 4-year public colleges free as well.  As this push continues, the obstacle lies with the lobbying efforts of the loan industry and with a Federal government keen to protect their interests.

financial consumer